I'm reading an excellent book entitled Towards A Fuller Vision: My Life & the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (A Short History: Part One) by Brahana Selassie, an African American of Caribbean background who is an Ethiopian Orthodox priest.

There is a fascinating section entitled "The Council of Chalcedon Revisited", which covers the background, proceedings, and other details of the Council, and attempts to trace why it was not accepted by the Coptic and Sister Churches.

Some sample quotes:

"... with the arrival of nine monks in Ethiopia in the last decades of the fifth century, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church received a first-class library of the Council of Chalcedon, it's minutes and proceedings. These have all been preserved until this day" (p. 116).

"Chalcedon acquitted Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa, both of whom were highly suspicious figures who were keeping alive the teachings of Nestorius, who himself had been condemned by the Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431." (p. 119).

The figure of St. Dioscoros of Alexandria figures prominently in the account of the Council contained in this book. According to the author, Dioscoros was deposed on charges of "disobedience", as no other charges could - or were - initially brought, and this charge was "strange", as Dioscoros answered every summons of the Council. The Roman delegation to the Council later drew up five charges, including "that even after the other bishops who had taken part in the [Earlier] council of 449 had made their peace with the holy See in Rome, he [Dioscoros, Archbishop of Alexandria] remained in rebellion" and "that he did not allow the reading of Pope Leo's Tome to Flavian at the Council of 449, thus causing the Church of Rome to be greatly scandalized" (!! - pp. 136-137).

Does anyone know of other sources - primary or otherwise - which treat the Council of Chalcedon from "this side of the fence"?

I haven't finished reading Brahana Selassie's account, but I find this subject quite fascinating. The author points out that most scholarship in English on the subject either reflects a Byzantine Orthodox view, which emphasizes the role of Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire, or takes the Roman Catholic stance (whether by Roman Catholic writers or their intellectual heirs) which marks the historic importance of this Council as the first or seminal triumph of the Pope of Rome and the claim to "Universal Jurisdiction".

[the fuller story may be quite different...]

Caveat Pre-Emptor: I hereby claim "intellectual interest", and personal interest in the Ethiopian Church, and explicitly am NOT attempting to issue any sort of doctrinal Chalcedonian tome, pro or contra!

rustaveli:O.K., this may be be like dropping a bomb on a can of worms,

BUT...

In the interest of "telling both sides"...

I'm reading an excellent book entitled Towards A Fuller Vision: My Life & the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (A Short History: Part One) by Brahana Selassie, an African American of Caribbean background who is an Ethiopian Orthodox priest.

There is a fascinating section entitled "The Council of Chalcedon Revisited", which covers the background, proceedings, and other details of the Council, and attempts to trace why it was not accepted by the Coptic and Sister Churches.

Just keep in mind the perspective and bias of the author.

Quote

rustaveli: Some sample quotes:

"... with the arrival of nine monks in Ethiopia in the last decades of the fifth century, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church received a first-class library of the Council of Chalcedon, it's minutes and proceedings. These have all been preserved until this day" (p. 116).

"Chalcedon acquitted Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa, both of whom were highly suspicious figures who were keeping alive the teachings of Nestorius, who himself had been condemned by the Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431." (p. 119).

Read the proceedings of the council for yourself.

Theodoret (who is known to the Eastern Orthodox Church as Blessed Theodoret) and Ibas condemned Nestorius and his teachings and professed their Orthodox faith at the Council of Chalcedon.

They were not "acquitted" of Nestorianism, but they were allowed to recant and repent.

Quote

rustaveli: The figure of St. Dioscoros of Alexandria figures prominently in the account of the Council contained in this book. According to the author, Dioscoros was deposed on charges of "disobedience", as no other charges could - or were - initially brought, and this charge was "strange", as Dioscoros answered every summons of the Council. The Roman delegation to the Council later drew up five charges, including "that even after the other bishops who had taken part in the [Earlier] council of 449 had made their peace with the holy See in Rome, he [Dioscoros, Archbishop of Alexandria] remained in rebellion" and "that he did not allow the reading of Pope Leo's Tome to Flavian at the Council of 449, thus causing the Church of Rome to be greatly scandalized" (!! - pp. 136-137).

The account of the proceedings at the Latrocinium (called by Non-Chalcedonians "Ephesus II") comes to us from eye-witness accounts, as recorded in such sources as Mansi's 31-volume Sacrorum Conciliorum.

Dioscorus, then the Patriarch of Alexandria, was known by the nickname of "Pharaoh" because of his imperious and tyrannical demeanor.

He dominated the synod held in Ephesus in 449, would not allow the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Flavian, a hearing, and refused to allow the Tome of Pope St. Leo the Great to be read.

St. Flavian was beaten and ultimately died as a consequence.

Dioscorus exonerated the heretic Eutyches.

The Council of Chalcedon was assembled in large part to correct the abuses of Dioscorus' Ephesian synod.

Quote

rustaveli: Does anyone know of other sources - primary or otherwise - which treat the Council of Chalcedon from "this side of the fence"?

That "side of the fence" was declared heretical by the Council of Chalcedon and subsequent Orthodox councils.

Dioscorus was quite rightly viewed by the Orthodox Fathers as a heretic. He testified at Chalcedon, where he made the following statement:

"I receive 'the of two;' 'the two' I do not receive (to` ek du'o de'chomai: to` du'o, ou de'chomai). I am forced to be impudent, but the matter is one which touches my soul."

This of course mirrors Eutyches' own famous statement, "I confess that before the union our Lord had two natures, but after the union I confess one single nature."

Quote

rustaveli: I haven't finished reading Brahana Selassie's account, but I find this subject quite fascinating. The author points out that most scholarship in English on the subject either reflects a Byzantine Orthodox view, which emphasizes the role of Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire, or takes the Roman Catholic stance (whether by Roman Catholic writers or their intellectual heirs) which marks the historic importance of this Council as the first or seminal triumph of the Pope of Rome and the claim to "Universal Jurisdiction".

[the fuller story may be quite different...]

Caveat Pre-Emptor: I hereby claim "intellectual interest", and personal interest in the Ethiopian Church, and explicitly am NOT attempting to issue any sort of doctrinal Chalcedonian tome, pro or contra!

"Chalcedon acquitted Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa, both of whom were highly suspicious figures who were keeping alive the teachings of Nestorius, who himself had been condemned by the Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431." (p. 119).

I also would recommend to read "Chalcedon Re-examined". Any body with any appreciation to scholastic approach to historical fact will find it a master piece. Every single fact is documented by tons of references, the references the Chalcedonian actually consider valid. The only difference is that the author decides to approach the matter with no bias. He does not ignore the facts when he does not like them like all Chalcedonian authors do because these facts condemn Leo of Rome for following Nestorius, Theodret, Ibas, Theodore, and all the archheretics.

God bless you and bless your search for the truth.

Peace,Stavro

Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)

I am seeking a fuller, non-polemical account of Chalcedon. My interest in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church spurs my special interest in this subject, although there is a whole lot more to the EOTC than this Council!

Once you have read Chalcedon Re-Examined you can turn to some of the primary materials themselves, and indeed read in the Fathers of the OO and see why they rejected Chalcedon - it certainly wasn't because they were Eutychians as Linus states.

I'm trying my best to stay out of theological arguments for the entire Apostle's Fast, but let men just interject to ask a quick question: Where can I get a copy of Fr. Selassie's book? It sounds very interesting. Please let me know ASAP! *Waiting eagerly...* :cwm31:

Logged

My sins run out behind me and I do not see them, but today I am coming to judge the errors of another.

Peace, the Chalcedonian Linus could not restrain himself once again from bringing his usual old wives fables, the usual tactics he uses to scare all truth seekers and misrepresent the Orthodox side. Consider this paragraph:

Quote

Dioscorus, then the Patriarch of Alexandria, was known by the nickname of "Pharaoh" because of his imperious and tyrannical demeanor.

From where did he get this grandma tale ? The legacy of St.Dioscoros, martyr of faith, is that he was tortured by the Chalcedonian by the blessing of Leo and the rest of the unholy synod for confessing the Orthodox Faith as St.Cyril and St.Athanasius defined it, refusing to give heed to the heresies of Leo and Theodret.

The other fables were proven wrong beyond doubt in previous posts and left our dearest Chalcedonian Linus embarassed.

Quote

Theodoret (who is known to the Eastern Orthodox Church as Blessed Theodoret)

Very Fitting

"You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord? " (Acts 13:10)

Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)

The document available at www.dskmariam.org on "The Doctrine of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church", includes sections on "The Incarnation" and "The Issue Between Monopysitism and Dyphysitism" This seems to me to be intended as a popular work, not a scholarly tome. Still, the statement therein cited below is interesting:

"Incarnation is a divine mystery. The two natures of Godhead and Manhood are perfectly united and Christ is thus one Person and one Nature from two Natures. Christ is one Incarnate nature of God the Word. After the union it is impossible to speak of Christ as being in two natures. By the union of the nature in the Incarnation the two natures became one nature, the natures being united without separation, without confusion, and without change. Neither of the two natures was assimilated by the other, the properties of the Divine Word were attributed to the flesh and those of the flesh to the Divine Word. The Logos revealed Himself in our flesh and became man like us. He did all things that man does with the exception of sin (John 8:46). And at the same time was truly God. He is God-Man. He is co-equal and consubstantial with the Father in his Godhead. He is perfectly united with us the union being from two modes of life into one."

Be aware that they are very biased links and the positions they state that the OO accept are in fact rejected by the OO.

If you want to know what OO believe ask an OO not a committed opponent of the OO.

Peter

... fear not, beloved Brethren!

I am most appreciative for all of the recommendations of reading material on the subject - although I'm familiar with the source of much of the "OrthodoxInfo" material - and "New Advent" seemeth to proceed forth from the maw of the Romish Heresiarchal Whore of Babylon!

Just playin' !

Seriously, thanks to all of you in this forum for your sharing of resources and your earnest committment to seeking Truth!

Stavro:Peace, the Chalcedonian Linus could not restrain himself once again from bringing his usual old wives fables, the usual tactics he uses to scare all truth seekers and misrepresent the Orthodox side. Consider this paragraph:From where did he get this grandma tale ? The legacy of St.Dioscoros, martyr of faith, is that he was tortured by the Chalcedonian by the blessing of Leo and the rest of the unholy synod for confessing the Orthodox Faith as St.Cyril and St.Athanasius defined it, refusing to give heed to the heresies of Leo and Theodret.

Thanks for referring to me as "the Chalcedonian Linus."

I think it is also well that you so forthrightly espouse the Non-Chalcedonian point of view concerning Orthodox saints ("the heresies of Leo and Theodoret") and ecumenical councils ("the unholy synod").

In so doing you make plain the very great gulf that exists between the Non-Chalcedonians and the Orthodox and why it is important that the latter insist that the Non-Chalcedonians must repent, accept all of the ecumenical councils, and repudiate their heterodox founders.

Quote

Stavro: The other fables were proven wrong beyond doubt in previous posts and left our dearest Chalcedonian Linus embarassed.

I must have missed all that!

Quote

Stavro: Very Fitting "You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord? " (Acts 13:10)

I guess that "user-friendly" verse is meant to refer to me.

Its use in this context also says a lot.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

You often refer to me as a Eutychian by stating that the leaders of my Church are Eutychian, and the usual bit about not being personal still doesn't wash. When you accuse someones Church of teaching heresy you accuse that someone of being a heretic.

If you were interested in 'good news' you would be seeking to see where we agreed instead of ignoring any and every post where I describe my faith and just posting links to a Catholic and ROAC website. Your approach is just bad news.

Since I repudiate Eutychianism and have spent 10 years studying the Fathers of the OO who most certainly equally reject all forms of Eutychianism your constant interjections on the Non-Chalcedonian board only show that you haven't had the decency to actually engage with real people but just perpetuate your negativity by isolating yourself from any contaminating dialogue.

Eutychianism - I anathematise it. And may the Lord put to shame those who accuse me of it.

What a load of rubbish you write sometimes Linus, and you could be such a blessing and such a postive force.

Since no OO fails to confess the double consubstantiality of Christ, and the perfect humanity and divinity, united without confusion or division, your constant efforts to accuse the OO of what they consider blasphemy is just mean spirited.

As I have said many times but you never do me the honour of responding. I confess that Christ is human and divine etc etc etc. and so do my fellow faithful, and my priests and my bishops, and every Father I have read.

So why keep saying what is not true, what is a lie in fact?

Why do you have this tremendous urge to spread negativity and disunion?

I cannot understand why any Christian would want to do so? Nothing you say about the OO is true, we keep rejecting it as not describing what we believe, yet you keep going on and on and on.

In so doing you make plain the very great gulf that exists between the Non-Chalcedonians and the Orthodox

I agree with Linus on that point. So many NC's try to act as if the EO and OO are one Church and make arguments that both share the same faith. And then all I see is Non-Chalcedonians calling Ecumenical Councils, which they susposedly except the content of, "un-holy synods", and Orthodox Saints are refered to as heretics.

Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint

It is not worth discussing these things with you Linus. You have trumpeted your credentials on the forum but they don't stack up if this is the way you engage in research.

All you are doing is deciding what YOU think I believe (and it is about me because I am a Non-Chalcedonian) and ignoring what I actually do believe.

That isn't any sort of basis for an argument and would be laughed out of any peer review.

If you insist that we confess that Christ has one nature as though you have found some great secret then it merely reveals your ignorance. Yet you could so easily be illuminated if you would listen for even a moment.

Sheeesh. What is the point, you are the most narrow minded person I know. You will not allow anyone to disturb your opinions.

Since no OO confesses that Christ has 'but one nature' in the sense that you are using the term nature your whole argument falls to pieces and is shown to be a red herring.

If you think that the opinions held about a person are more important that what is believed about Christ then in fact we do have different faiths. I'd rather be united with someone who had the same faith as me and was ambivalent about some father than separate from him when we have the same faith in Christ.

i am afraid that while I am very strict when it comes to the substance of our faith I think I'd rather side with the Fathers like St Cyril and bear with a degree of compromise on secondary matters. Orthodoxy is not Pharisaism, though some groups make it seem like it is.

If I believed that Christ is fully and perfectly God and man, if I confess he has a natural human will, if I reject the three chapters, if I venerate icons, and if I find that you confess all of these things also, then I believe we have the same faith and the rest needs to be worked out but should not be an obstacle.

You are entitled to your opinion if you think that salvation is actually dependant on many lesser issues.

As someone once wrote, I would rather bear with your weakness than separate from your good.

I don't know about you but I'm here to find how much I can rejoice to have in common with EO and RCs and ACOTE etc. I'd have to be pretty sad to want to spend time on the internet pointing out to people all the negative things, though in a positive attitude that is also useful.

You tell me why I don't have the same faith - not the same history - but the same faith. I'm not going to stand before Christ and say that although I discovered that Ben believed exactly the same thing as me because he didn't like St Severus as much as me I decided I'd make sure I told him every day that he was a heretic.

peterfarrington:What a load of rubbish you write sometimes Linus, and you could be such a blessing and such a postive force.

Your opinion.

You really should learn to be more polite.

Quote

peterfarrington: Since no OO fails to confess the double consubstantiality of Christ, and the perfect humanity and divinity, united without confusion or division, your constant efforts to accuse the OO of what they consider blasphemy is just mean spirited.

The Nestorians confessed the same thing.

It is the rest of what your spokesmen and leaders say that belies their otherwise orthodox confession.

Why continue to speak of "one nature" and "one will" if that is not what they mean?

Why continue to reject Chalcedon and the councils that followed it?

Why continue to venerate men the Fathers excoriated as heretics?

Quote

peterfarrington: As I have said many times but you never do me the honour of responding. I confess that Christ is human and divine etc etc etc. and so do my fellow faithful, and my priests and my bishops, and every Father I have read.

As I said above, your leaders say other things that belie what might otherwise be an orthodox confession.

If you are all so Orthodox, then accept the Council of Chalcedon and the councils that followed it, quit speaking of one nature and one will, and enter the Orthodox Catholic Church.

Quote

peterfarrington: So why keep saying what is not true, what is a lie in fact?

I don't think I am the one who is lying.

Quote

peterfarrington: Why do you have this tremendous urge to spread negativity and disunion?

Sometimes it is necessary to say "no," Peter.

And it is not always right to be "united."

The Orthodox Fathers and Councils have spoken on the subject of the Non-Chalcedonians.

Orthodox Christians who contradict them imperil their souls.

Quote

peterfarrington: I cannot understand why any Christian would want to do so? Nothing you say about the OO is true, we keep rejecting it as not describing what we believe, yet you keep going on and on and on.

Why do it?

We disagree, Peter.

If you (meaning all Non-Chalcedonians) were truly Orthodox, you would subscribe to the dogmatic decrees of the Council of Chalcedon and the subsequent councils.

Is that what you do?

No!

You post criticisms of Chalcedon.

Would your leaders continue to speak of "one nature" and "one will" - knowing full well the meaning of trinitarian and christological terminology - if they were truly Orthodox?

I oppose union with Non-Chalcedonians unless the Non-Chalcedonians repent, accept all of the ecumenical councils, and repudiate their heterodox founders.

Why do I hold this opinion?

Because I feel it is no kindness to tell others they are Orthodox when they, in fact, are not.

It is a betrayal of the Fathers to pretend they merely "misunderstood" the Non-Chalcedonians. It is wrong to contradict what the Holy Spirit led them to declare in their writings and councils.

Say what you will about me.

I will stick with the voice of the Holy Spirit in the Fathers and Holy Councils of the Church.

That's what it means to be Orthodox.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

I hate to interject at this juncture, but might someone have some reflections on my posting above regarding the statement in "The Doctrine of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church" (i.e., the passage beginning "Incarnation is a divine mystery"...)

- or on the unworthy ruminations thereupon of 'I, An Unworthy Serpent"...?

Yes Stavro you are. With that statement you've proved yourself the heretic here, not Linus, named after the holy second pope.

I agree,Pope Saint Leo is not a Heretic, wasn't then and isn't now, no matter how much you wish it to be otherwise!

« Last Edit: June 11, 2004, 08:01:15 PM by Ben »

Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint

Since this thread has degenerated into uselessness, I am locking it with a warning. Since it seems there are people on both sides of the argument, EO and OO, who lack the self-control necessary to carry out theological discussion in a respectful manner and without making it personal (and while this has been alleged before, this thread is the first time where I've felt OO participants have very clearly crossed the line in this regard, whereas it wasn't so clear-cut in the past, and there seemed to be plenty of "balance" from the EO side), I am considering prohibiting them from discussing Non-Chalcedonian/Chalcedonian issues at least for a time, with an official warning. Perhaps you want to be so prohibited; very well, but I'd rather that you men, probably many years older than I, act like mature individuals.

Logged

"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet. He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants. But he really isn't around anymore.

You really should learn to be more polite.The Nestorians confessed the same thing.

Although Mor Ephrem closed the thread, I would like to point out in the name of accuracy that Nestorius most definitely did NOT confess these things. For him the unity of God and Man was incidental and by will, not nature. If anyone wants to discuss Nestorianism, open a thread in the faith section.